James Adonis is one of Australia's best-known people-management thinkers

Imagine this. Your boss gets you into an office, sits you down, and tells you there are some serious allegations you need to answer. No, not about your current job. This particular interrogation is in regards to your last job, the one you held with your previous employer. Or perhaps even the one before that. Or, as the case may be, a job you held 17 years ago. (You know where this is going, right?)

At what point does an employee’s history become just that? History. In the Julia Gillard example, she is being asked to account for ancient actions irrespective of her performance in her current position as prime minister.

And the reality is that many of the armchair critics demanding Gillard’s resignation are the sensitive souls most likely to crumble when given negative feedback in their present job, let alone one they held two decades ago.

That’s why it was so unfair back in 2007 when Michael Coutts-Trotter, upon being made director-general of the NSW Department of Education, was attacked by the opposition and the Teachers Federation.

Advertisement

It was revealed he had once been in prison for a narcotics offence, arrested at a time when he was also a heroin user. Even though he had since recovered, the accusations were still flung precipitately from the moral do-gooders, claiming Coutts-Trotter had a history too dark for such an influential role.

He served in the role regardless. And he performed so impressively that, last year, when Barry O’Farrell was elected premier and subsequently cleaned out the public service, Coutts-Trotter was one of the few Labor appointments to be kept on, becoming director-general of the Department of Finance and Services.

When explaining his decision, O’Farrell said: “I and my colleagues will always look for people who have merit, for people who can do the job.”

Yes! Isn’t that what it should always be about? O’Farrell has intelligently articulated that what matters is merit; what counts is ability; and what determines future accomplishments is talent and dedication, not some outdated transgressions (from which people have since learned and improved).

Who cares if, once upon a time, someone was a jailbird or a prostitute or a drug addict or a bankrupt or whatever other violation deemed naughty enough for the purposes of rejecting a job application? I’d rather hire a reformed criminal than many of the indolent no-hopers with clean histories who have inhabited my teams in the past.

A couple of months ago in the United States, a high school counselor named Tiffani Webb was fired despite 12 years of service, a doctorate in clinical psychology, and an excellent reputation.

Why was she sacked? Because photos emerged of her in lingerie, taken from a previous career as a model. The school deemed the pictures inappropriate even though they were 17 years old. Of course, now she’s suing.

It’s that kind of mentality – one that disregards an employee’s positive attributes – that makes companies miss out on amazing candidates. Many of these companies then complain about skills shortages when some of those shortages could be alleviated by removing biases from the recruitment process.

That’s what we’re seeing in politics. People with talent, with something of value to contribute, shun a political career because of the inevitable way their history will be dug up, exposed, and judged instead of celebrated for its diversity and the lessons it has taught. That leaves us with politicians who may have a spotless record but don’t truly represent the lives and experiences of their constituents.

The great thing about business is that it doesn’t need to be like that.

47 comments so far

Very well said... People learn lessons, which makes them who they are today... If Tony Abbott supporters can look past his student politics days and see his current attributes that they claim make him worthy of being PM, why can't they do the same for Ms Gillard...

Current politicians are all living in glass houses and throwing stones. The media plays it up because it creates better headlines than policy based stories, and the community consumes it because its easier than understanding policy. It is worth noting that politicians, some more than others, lack policy. Also, true analysis of policy, even partisan analysis, is difficult to come by.

Sadly, there's no rules of evidence in the court of public opinion!

Commenter

Bailz7

Location

Sydney

Date and time

November 30, 2012, 11:31AM

This is not even a sensible comparison.

Abbot supposedly banged a wall in front of his opposing student politician - a claim made by a serial complainant about harassment over many years.

Gillard on the other hand, has obfuscated and refused to properly respond to allegations that she engaged in criminal behaviour as a solicitor. It goes to the heart of her integrity, honesty and character to be in the top job in the country.

She was hauled into her employer's office and asked to explain her behaviour, they ran a secret investigation on her, she kept her dealings with the AWU secret from her employers, some sworn court documents relating to her dealings have mysteriously gone missing, she allegedly lied to the WA Commission as a solicitor, refused to even keep a file of her dealings (an unheard of practice) and is contradicted by a former employer about what she really did.

On top of that she lied about not trying to get rid of Rudd when Maxine McKey has MPs and Ministers who state that she was actively trying to remove him months before - not ON THE DAY of the ballot as she falsely claims.

There is a definite pattern of behaviour with Gillard and it is very sus.

If Australians are prepared to tolerate such a shocking past with all the implications for future behavioural trends then is it any wonder we get such crappy politicians? Of course not, we ask for them.

Commenter

PO

Location

Melb

Date and time

December 03, 2012, 8:09AM

There are none so dangerous as the righteous.

I agree completely in regards to Michael Coutts-Trotter, if there is any judgement of his past it should be, that he does a better job as a result.

Julia many not have covered herself in glory 20 years ago, but, so what?

Commenter

Road to Damascus

Location

NSW

Date and time

November 30, 2012, 11:39AM

Nail.Head.Hit.

Commenter

Kaisersokay

Location

Haymarket

Date and time

November 30, 2012, 11:49AM

Nail HeadMiss!!

Commenter

MFL

Date and time

December 01, 2012, 7:06PM

@ MFL - are you just going to allow people to be burdened by their mistakes? I would love to see how 'perfect' you are and when we flesh out all your historical errors (which you will have) I will be sure to point them out to your current employer.

Instead, you should give Mr Coutts-Trotter an absolute pat on the back for having the courage and ability to turn his life around. How could you be so spiteful as to discard somebody's merit on the basis of past improprieties. If you ran the world you would struggle severely.

Commenter

Hater

Location

Sydney

Date and time

December 02, 2012, 11:41AM

Does a person's history matter? Well, yes it does, provided the history is relevant to the current employement. Would you allow a convicted paedophile to work in a preschool? On the other hand, convicted computer hackers are in great demand in IT security roles. In both cases, history is relevant, although for different outcomes.

In the case of the Prime Minister, is the history relevant? I'd say no. After 17 years of dirt digging, including by the ALP, well known for knifing its own members, nothing of substance has surfaced, so the whole saga smells of muck-raking for cheap political points. Abbott has claimed on the same day that there was possible criminal behaviour (conveniently worded to allow him an out, of course) and then the whole point of the attacks are because it shows something about her integrity.

So if Abbott can't win one argument, just tell everyone it was really a different one. Perhaps someone should look at Abbott and the Liberal Party's claims over a shorter historical timespan. For example, "GFC, Chrisis, what crisis?", "We will have a kinder, gentler polity", "Refugees are breaking the law"

Quite frankly, both parties are pretty much morally bankrupt and are more interested in their own self interest than the public.

Commenter

peter

Location

warrimoo

Date and time

November 30, 2012, 11:58AM

This is a great article that i can relate to. I was a drug addict for over 10 years but through rehab, prison time and family support i manged to turn my life around. However, the fear of it affecting my career still lives on. In my current role, which is quite high level with responsibility in a large company, i did admit my past transgressions to one high level manager that I knew before getting the job. Their reaction was that it actually made them think more of me for overcoming such a life-hurdle. I do believe overcoming those troubles in my life has made me a better person with a boarder and more positive look on life.

Commenter

G-Ham

Location

Brisbane

Date and time

November 30, 2012, 12:07PM

+1 Naughty to Success - Way to go - Chicks dig bad boys!

Commenter

Knight Rider

Date and time

November 30, 2012, 12:48PM

Except that is a delusional view.

The chicks who dig ' bad boys' are invariably emotionally insecure, unreliable and cheaters with not much going on upstairs. The 'bad boys' themselves are pretty much the same but have the added undesirable characteristic of being selfish to the point of narcissism - a largely untreatable psychological deficiency. They always end up lonely old men. (And women).